The Encyclopedia of World Religions

140 S evolution and religion

Religions have also said that some apparent evil is not really such, but has a purpose in evo lution, in educating persons, or in teaching non attachment, and so is experienced only by those of imperfect spiritual development. Yet the prob lem of evil must undoubtedly be regarded as not completely solved. Many people who reject reli gion altogether do so on the grounds of its seeming inability to deal with the problem of evil in a world created by a good God. evolution and religion The ways in which reli gion relates to evolution. Evolution is the idea that life, and sometimes human culture, has developed from simple to more complex forms. Evolution is an old idea. Some ancient phi losophers, such as the Roman poet Lucretius ( c. 95–55 B . C . E .), had already written about it. But evolution came into its own in Europe and North America during the 19th century. Two kinds of evolution are especially important with regard to religion. One is the theory that life on Earth has evolved over a period of hundreds of millions of years. Today virtually all reputable scientists—and a good many religious people—accept this theory. The second is the question of whether religion itself has evolved. The theory of the evolution of life is insepa rable from the name Charles Darwin (1809–82). In 1859 Darwin published On the Origin of Species. It made the theory of evolution unavoidable. Dar win did not actually propose the idea that life had evolved. Others, such as Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), had already done that. Nor did Dar win argue that life evolved from nonliving matter. That idea only came later. What Darwin did was show how evolution could work. He proposed a theory of “natural selection.” In his view, forms of life change constantly, if only in minor ways. Only the best forms survive. The word “best” here means best able to compete for resources and reproduce. By the end of the 19th century the theory of evolution had been widely accepted by theologians as well as by scientists.

things from a perspective above the world and from which to interpret all that transpires in it, it must say something about the reasons for evil. J UDAISM , C HRISTIANITY , and I SLAM basically see evil as the result of the disobedience to God of creatures having the free will to obey or not. In some traditional stories, it was first ANGELS , who on rebelling against God, then became DEVILS AND DEMONS , although the notion of a devil is foreign in Judaism. Then humans, as in the story of A DAM and E VE in the Garden of Eden, succumbed to evil of their own will though they were also tempted by a devil. By bringing in devils and demons as well as humans, these stories seem to be saying that not all evil is directly due to human agency. In Chris tianity, there is also evil embedded in nature— floods, droughts, the cruelty of animals. Perhaps it goes back to a cosmic rebellion and “fall” before humans came onto the scene. G NOSTICISM , a religion of the ancient world related to Judaism and Chris tianity, thought that our entire world was made by a “demiurge” or lower and incompetent god with little good will toward humans, who botched the job of fashioning this particular abode of life. SALVATION is out of this world altogether, back to the Halls of Light from which we ultimately came, before we were trapped in the demiurge’s mess of an evil world. Z OROASTRIANISM adopted a dualistic view, say ing the world is a battleground between Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Light, and Ahriman, the source of evil; in one view, these two are eternal prin ciples, though Ahura Mazda will eventually pre vail in this world. That perspective has probably influenced the other Western religions, as when in Christianity the role of S ATAN as Prince of Dark ness and great adversary of God is emphasized, and this world is seen as provisionally his domain. In the East, evil is basically ascribed to KARMA , or cause and effect from our thoughts, words, and deeds, and from ignorance, not seeing things as they really are and so not rightly assessing the results of acts. There is not only individual karma, but also group karma, of communities, nations, the world as a whole, and one may be entangled in it as well.